Climate resilience assessment of smallholder farmers in the Gambia
Adapting small-scale irrigation to climate change in West and Central Africa (AICCA)
Climate resilience assessment of smallholder farmers in the Gambia
An assessment resilience to climate of small-scale agricultural systems in Pacharr- Jahally and Salikenni irrigation sites
Patricia Mejias Moreno, Technical Officer, Land and Water Division, Strategic Programme on Reduce Rural Poverty, FAO María Hernández Lagana, Economist and Resilience Assessment Expert, Land and Water Division, FAO
Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations Rome, 2019 Required citation: Mejias Moreno, P. and Lagana, M.H. 2019. Climate resilience assessment of smallholder farmers in the Gambia. Rome, FAO. 48 pp. Licence: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO.
The designations employed and the presentation of material in this information product do not imply the expression of any opinion whatsoever on the part of the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) concerning the legal or development status of any country, territory, city or area or of its authorities, or concerning the delimitation of its frontiers or boundaries. The mention of specific companies or products of manufacturers, whether or not these have been patented, does not imply that these have been endorsed or recommended by FAO in preference to others of a similar nature that are not mentioned.
The views expressed in this information product are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of FAO.
© FAO, 2019
Some rights reserved. This work is made available under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 IGO licence (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0 IGO; https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/igo/legalcode/legalcode).
Under the terms of this licence, this work may be copied, redistributed and adapted for non-commercial purposes, provided that the work is appropriately cited. In any use of this work, there should be no suggestion that FAO endorses any specific organization, products or services. The use of the FAO logo is not permitted. If the work is adapted, then it must be licensed under the same or equivalent Creative Commons licence. If a translation of this work is created, it must include the following disclaimer along with the required citation: “This translation was not created by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO). FAO is not responsible for the content or accuracy of this translation. The original [Language] edition shall be the authoritative edition.”
Disputes arising under the licence that cannot be settled amicably will be resolved by mediation and arbitration as described in Article 8 of the licence except as otherwise provided herein. The applicable mediation rules will be the mediation rules of the World Intellectual Property Organization http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/mediation/rules and any arbitration will be conducted in accordance with the Arbitration Rules of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL).
Third-party materials. Users wishing to reuse material from this work that is attributed to a third party, such as tables, figures or images, are responsible for determining whether permission is needed for that reuse and for obtaining permission from the copyright holder. The risk of claims resulting from infringement of any third-party-owned component in the work rests solely with the user.
Sales, rights and licensing. FAO information products are available on the FAO website (www.fao.org/publications) and can be purchased through [email protected]. Requests for commercial use should be submitted via: www.fao.org/contact- us/licence-request. Queries regarding rights and licensing should be submitted to: [email protected]. Contents
Acknowledgements vi Acronyms vii 1. Introduction 1 1.1 Methodology 1 1.2 Resilience assessment: SHARP background 2 2. Project sites 4 3. Analysis of the baseline data 6 3.1 Household characteristics 6 3.2 Livelihoods and socio-economic characteristics 7 3.2.1 Income sources and main expenditures 7 3.2.2 Access to local markets and financial resources 7 4. Environmental indicators, climate disturbances and sustainable use of resources 9 4.1 Crops and varieties 9 4.2 Climate disturbances and effects 12 4.3 Access to information on weather and cropping practices 14 4.4 Sustainable use of resources: Land and water management practices 15 4.5 Irrigation infrastructure 17 4.6 Field irrigation practices 19 4.7 Agricultural equipment 21 5. Resilience analysis 23 5.1 Resilience by irrigation site 26 6. Conclusions 28 7. Annexes 30 Annex 1. Crop production 30 Annex 2. Disturbances 31 Annex 3. Sustainable use of resources 32 Annex 4. Water sources and irrigation systems 34 Annex 5. SHARP measurement of resilience 36
iii Figures
Figure 1. Main crops (seasonal / temporary cultivars) 9 Figure 2. Seed sources for main crops by irrigation site 10 Figure 3. Proportion of people using new varieties in the last 15 years 11 Figure 4. Irrigated crops according to their importance in the household 11 Figure 5. Disturbances experienced in the last decade ranked by intensity by irrigation site 12 Figure 6. Types of climate change events witnessed by irrigation site 13 Figure 7. Access to information by irrigation site and type of information 14 Figure 8. Land management practices used, by irrigation site 16 Figure 9. Water conservation practice, by irrigation site 17 Figure 10. Water source, intake, extraction and lifting by irrigation system 19 Figure 11. Irrigation technologies used, total 20 Figure 12. Changes in water availability for crops due to variations in rainfall and/or temperature, by irrigation site.21 Figure 13. Agricultural equipment used by irrigation site 22 Figure 14. Average resilience levels across different modules 23 Figure 15. SHARP resilience components: objective and self-assessments 25 Figure 16. Resilience assessment by irrigation site 27
iv Tables
Table 1. Characteristics of the irrigation systems assessed 4 Table 2. Socio-economic characteristics of the sampled population 6 Table 3. Climate change impacts by irrigation site, percentage of households 14 Table 4. Sources of information on cropping practices, by irrigation site 15 Table 5. Irrigation technologies, by irrigation site 20 Table 6. Aspects of resilience, disaggregated by level and irrigation site 26
Table A1. Crop production (Number of producers) 30 Table A2. Crop production (Percentage of producers) 30 Table A3. Other crops produced 30 Table A4. Disturbances experienced by level of importance 31 Table A5. Access to land, by irrigation site 32 Table A6. Use of and improving practices, by irrigation site 32 Table A7. Use of water conservation practices, by irrigation site 33 Table A8. Irrigation infrastructure, total surveyed people 34 Table A9. Water source, intake and extraction 34 Table A10. SHARP measurement of resilience, total interviewed people 36 Table A11. SHARP measurement of resilience, by irrigation site 37
v Acknowledgements
This report was developed as part of the project "Adapting small-scale irrigation to climate change in West and central Africa - AICCA", funded by the International Fund for Agricultural Development (IFAD).
The report was prepared under the technical direction of Patricia Mejias Moreno, Technical Officer in the Land and Water Division and the Strategic Programme for Rural Poverty Reduction of FAO. The report was prepared by María Hernández Lagana, FAO consultant, with the contribution of the national focal point, Mr. Abdou Rhamane Jobe, Head of Soil and Water Management Services, Ministry of Agriculture, Gambia, and the national consultant, Baba Galleh Jallow. Michèle Piraux, FAO communication expert, and Charlotte Alcouffe, FAO intern, provided editorial support. The cover was made by James Morgan. This report was also made possible thanks to the contributions of stakeholders from the Government of the Gambia, at national and subnational levels, smallholders from the sites of Jahaly, Pachar and Salinkenni and the FAO office in the Gambia.
vi Acronyms
AICCA Adapting small-scale irrigation to climate change in West and Central Africa AP/FFS Agro-pastoral/ farmer field school CCA Climate change adaptation FAO Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations ICT Information and communication technology IFAD International Fund for Agricultural Development IGA Income generating activities SHARP Self-evaluation and Holistic Assessment of climate Resilience for farmers and Pastoralists TS Tidal scheme WCA West and Central Africa WR Water retention
vii
1. Introduction
The objective of the project “Adapting small-scale irrigation to climate change in West and Central Africa (WCA) - AICCA” is to improve sustainability and adaptation of small-scale irrigation systems across key agro-ecological systems in the WCA region. In order to meet this goal, the project is composed of two phases:
1. A regional analysis in eight countries representative of the region - Chad, the Gambia, Côte d’Ivoire, Mali, Mauritania, Niger and Sierra Leone -, which describes the climate change implications on irrigated agriculture and highlights the irrigation technologies and best practices adapted to climate shocks that are valuable to scale up. 2. An in-depth analysis carried out in four pilot countries - The Gambia, Côte d’Ivoire, Mali and Niger - to assess the impact of climate change on irrigation systems, to propose adaptation strategies and to estimate their costs.
In this framework, needs-assessment household surveys were planned in the four pilot countries of the WCA region: Côte d’Ivoire, Mali, Niger and the Gambia. Between June and August, household surveys were conducted in three regions in the Gambia in order to measure the level of resilience of two different irrigation types to climate resilience. Two hundred and seventy-one households were interviewed with the Self-evaluation and Holistic Assessment of climate Resilience for farmers and Pastoralists (SHARP) tool in tidal irrigation and water retention sites.
The aim of the survey was to understand and document the prevailing socio-economic and environmental conditions of rural households in the Gambia, as well as to identify the practices to adapt to climate change currently used. Moreover, the data collection had the purpose to establish a baseline assessment of current resilience status of smallholders to develop guidelines and design potential project interventions and strategies related to Climate Change Adaptation (CCA) for small irrigation systems.
1.1 Methodology
The survey was conducted in the Salikenni village of Central Badibu Districts in the North Bank Region (beneficiaries of the Salikenni water retention scheme) and 21 villages within the Lower Fuladu West District of Central River Region (beneficiaries of the Jahaly - 8 villages) and Pacharr (13 villages - tidal irrigation schemes) targeting the head of the 271 households1 with at least 30 percent of female respondents. The households sampled are statistically representative2 for an estimated population in the different irrigation sites.
1 When the head of the household was not present, their spouses or husbands were interviewed instead. 2 Based on 95% confidence level and 5% margin of error. 1
The selection criteria for the chosen participants were:
Households managing either a tidal or a water retention irrigation system. Located in different agro-ecological zones of the selected provinces. Being rice producers.
In order to compile the data, the Self-evaluation and Holistic Assessment of climate Resilience for farmers and Pastoralists (SHARP) tool developed by FAO was used. The SHARP tool was selected to conduct the resilience assessment as it helps collecting objective information of smallholders holistically, while it addresses the need to better understand and incorporate the concerns and interests of farmers, pastoralists and agro-pastoralists3 related to climate resilience (http://www.fao.org/in-action/sharp/en/).
The tool also enabled the identification of self-stated needs of communities which could serve as the basis to foster the implementation strategies and interventions addressing such needs.
A training on the use of the SHARP tool took place in February 2017 in Bouaké, Côte d’Ivoire, after the project inception workshop was conducted. The training was delivered to project staff of FAO/IFAD Côte d’Ivoire, the Gambia, Mali and Niger, the national focal points and enumerators. The training focused on the understanding of the methodology embedded in SHARP, through in-class practice and hands-on training in the field where the application was first piloted.
Project staff led the household selection and mobilization processes for the data collection. In the Gambia, the data gathering took place between June and August 2017 and 271 surveys were conducted across the different provinces. After their finalization, questionnaires were uploaded to the FAO central server for their analysis. Data was processed using STATA and interpreted following the SHARP methodology4 for the resilience analysis and the project logical framework.
This report presents the main results of the survey in the Gambia, clustered per the different categories of indicators and intervention areas. Baseline data can be further exploited and analysed during the project implementation to study specific issues as needed.
1.2 Resilience assessment: SHARP background
Resilience is defined in SHARP as the capacity of social, economic, and environmental systems to cope with a hazardous event, trend or disturbance, responding or reorganizing in
3 SHARP uses the term agro-pastoralist, which commonly defines a member of a people living in drylands by a mixture of agriculture and livestock herding. Nonetheless, for this context it is referred as the presence of a mixed system, i.e. crop and livestock in the same household/farm system. 4 SHARP background document: http://www.fao.org/documents/card/en/c/a78ba721-9e03-4cfc-b04b- c89d1a332e54/ 2
ways that maintain their essential function, identity and structure, while also maintaining the ability to adapt, learn and transform.
The SHARP app customized version for the AICCA project comprises 30 question modules that cover socio-economic, productive and environmental aspects crucial for identifying the resources and practices used by smallholders to maintain their livelihoods and to cope with and adapt to unexpected weather events and climate trends. The irrigation tailored version of SHARP includes two new themes: irrigation field practices and irrigation infrastructure that aim at identifying the irrigation systems, practices and equipment used by smallholders in the different WCA countries. Finally, the combination of the questions allows assessing the level of resilience at household/farm level.
SHARP works through a survey questionnaire embedded in an Android-based application for tablets; each survey question group is used to calculate the relative resilience of a specific aspect of the farming system. Resilience in SHARP is measured using three scoring components comprised in each question group:
a) Academic score: gives an objective indication of the resource level in the farm system, e.g. the number and varieties of crops cultivated, climate disturbances experienced (direct scale from 0 to 10). b) Adequacy assessment: is a qualitative question that provides information on the perception people have of the availability of a specific resource, i.e. to what extent the resource is enough to meet the farm needs (direct scale from 0 to 10). c) Importance assessment: is a subjective statement of the importance a resource may have (or not) for the functioning of the system (inverse scale from 10 to 0).
It is important to mention that the assessments were initially conceived to be self-stated. Nonetheless, due to the purpose of the use of SHARP as an assessment of needs in this project, the adequacy and the importance questions were asked by enumerators and field technicians, removing the “self-assessment” component.
The combination of the first two components provides a general score of resilience (from 0 to 20) in which the lowest score highlights the question of relative lowest resilience/higher vulnerability. Generally speaking, low scores can be interpreted either by the absence of the resource in question, or/and because people consider the amount of resources they have is not sufficient for the well-functioning of their systems. In this report, low resilience levels would be given for those questions scoring 10.0 points or less (below 7.0, resilience levels would be considered as very low), while high resilience levels would be identified when the question under analysis scores higher than 10 points (above 12, levels would be reported as reasonably high).
On the other hand, the last component, the importance assessment, reflects people’s priorities and is an inverse scale; namely low scores would reflect that [the presence of] a given resource is very important/would be very important for the functioning of their system. High priority will be given to those questions scoring from 0 to 5, and low importance to those with 6 or more points. 3
2. Project sites
The data was collected from households in three different irrigation sites in two different types of irrigation systems: tidal irrigation and water retention. The Table 1 in this section provide an overview of the main characteristics for each site.
Table 1. Characteristics of the irrigation systems assessed
Irrigation site Tidal zones Water retention Agro-ecological zone Lowland Lowland Location Central River Region-South North Bank Region Water sources River Gambia Surface runoff from the upland is impounded to a certain level before flowing downstream. Method to drain water Drains. Same canal used for Drains. Spillway allows excess irrigation and drainage water to flow downstream and to river Main crops Rice Rice (2 varieties) Irrigation system Tidal irrigation scheme with Water retention. Spillways allow perimeter dike in order to prevent for natural runoff water unwanted inflow/outflow of water Presence of rotation A rotation system is not There is no rotation system in system implemented; irrigation and place. The distribution depends on drainage is determined by the the land elevation and quantity of weekly alternating spring and rainfall/runoff neap tides along the river; secondly uniform cropping is yet to be realised within the blocks/scheme Water availability Water availability is not sufficient This varies from year to year (manager's for crops depending on the quantity and assessment) distribution of rainfall Access to Yes, information is available but Information is available but mostly meteorological mostly generalised (not location generalised (not location specific); information specific); timely preventive timely preventive information is (manager's information is normally not normally not available. It is assessment) available. It is considered very considered very important to important to manage the irrigation manage the irrigation scheme scheme Management Government established it and Community handed it over to community with an oversite on overall management Maintenance costs Users contribute labour for routine Users contribute labour for routine maintenance and Government maintenance and Government execute major repairs; technically execute major repairs; Village the Rice Farmers Cooperative Development Committee (VDC) Society (RFCS) is being revived to and swamp development committee is charged with the 4
Irrigation site Tidal zones Water retention Maintenance costs take up the management of the management of development (continued) scheme works within the community Priorities in case of Crop stress Relies on run-off; nothing can be water scarcity done without rain Climate change trends Decreased rainfall, increased Decreased rainfall, increased observed rainfall variability, increased rainfall variability, increased temperature, flooding, shorter temperature, flooding, shorter rainy season rainy season Climate change Poor harvest, crop tiled, crop Poor harvest, crop failure, less impacts failure, less farm income farm income Coping strategies Farmers revert to using traditional Introduction of short duration rice rice varieties during the rainy varieties season. Shift to rainfed upland crops for rice-young producers during the rainy season
5
3. Analysis of the baseline data
3.1 Household characteristics
The baseline assessment covered a population of 271 households in the three different project sites (Jahally, Pacharr and Salinkenni) in the Gambia (see Table 2). Almost 100 percent (268 respondents) identified themselves as agro-pastoralists, i.e. possessing a mixed system of crops and animals; while only 1 percent relied only on the production of crops. In either type of agricultural systems, the main purpose of production is for on-farm consumption, and around 50 percent of the households produce for commercializing directly in local markets and 44 percent directs their agricultural production to a more industrialized model (agri-business).
Table 2. Socio-economic characteristics of the sampled population
# % # %
Participants 271 100% Survey Location Jahaly, Pachar and Salinkenni, the Gambia Respondent characteristics # % Household composition # % Occupation Gender (household head) Agro-pastoralists 268 99% Men 211 78%
Farmers 3 1% Women 60 22% Gender (respondent) Household composition by age
Female 126 46% Boys 0-15 1135 21%
Male 145 54% Girls 0-15 1093 20% Age Men 16-45 1137 21%
16- 30 31 11% Women 16-45 1185 22% 31 - 45 91 34% Men 46+ 373 7%
46+ 149 55% Women 46+ 437 8% Purpose of production* Total 5360 100%
Own consumption 262 97% Education completed
Market 125 46% Primary 726 14%
Agribusiness 118 44% Migration** Other 61 23% HH member migrated 184 68% The question allows for multiple option responses ** At least one member of the family has migrated
Twenty-two percent of the households covered were headed by women and 78 percent by men, which is less than the initially set quota (30%); nonetheless when observing the respondents, 46 percent were females and 54 percent males. The households in the covered districts are characterized by the presence of nuclear and extended family in the same shelter, with an average number of 20 members and a median of nine, being mostly children and young adults the largest share of the composition. 6
Regarding the educational levels, it can be noticed that completion rates of primary schooling remain low; only 14 percent of the household members have completed the primary level of education. Moreover, when observing at the migration rates, at least one member of the 68 percent households sampled has migrated in the past ten years. The combination of both variables clearly influences the level of human capital present in the household.
3.2 Livelihoods and socio-economic characteristics
3.2.1 Income sources and main expenditures
Agriculture is the main livelihood of the assessed farmers and agro-pastoralists, being agricultural production the main activity of 93 percent of them. About one third of farmers produce food under irrigated land as the main source of revenue. However, the surveyed smallholders have an average of three sources of income. Remittances (21% of the respondents), labour/employment outside agriculture (9%) and trade (9%) constitute other important sources of revenues of the rural population in the irrigation sites. The latter also reveals that agricultural producers rely on non-farm agricultural activities for a living; indeed 76 percent of the respondents declared to have one either permanently or seasonally.
The largest share of the revenues either form agricultural production or non-farm related activities is spent on food (98% of the respondents declared food & beverages to be the main item), followed by farm equipment (35%), inputs (31%) and human capital (education 12% and healthcare 9%).
3.2.2 Access to local markets and financial resources
Access to local markets
Gambian farmers have access to local markets, though it is intermittent most of the times for 53 percent of the respondents. Vehicles (89%) and donkeys (87%) are the main means people use to reach and transport their agricultural produce, less than a half go by foot (38%) and half of them use bicycles.
Local farm inputs
Overall, smallholders in the irrigation sites declared to have access their productive inputs, though they face difficulties to get them, particularly fertilizers and knowledge with almost 50 percent of respondents. Other areas of concern of about one third of interviewees were capital (33%), equipment (34%) and irrigation (30%). Seeds are easily accessed by the members of the irrigation sites in Jahaly, Pachar and Salinkenni.
7
Financial support
Almost 60 percent of the farmers needed financial support in the past five years to cover unexpected expenses. Family (69%), remittances (42%) and friends (21%) constituted the main sources of assistance, while micro-finance institutions (8%), bank (3%) and cooperatives (3%) represented a minor share of this support.
Savings
Most of the respondents stated to have savings (72%) and these to have increased in the past five years (69%). People usually save by keeping cash at home (59%) and purchasing livestock (50%), and only less than 30 percent use financial institutions as banks and saving structures (29 and 27% respectively).
These numbers suggest that people depend heavily on social networks to cope with unexpected financial shocks. Moreover, there is scope to further develop the micro-financial sector to lend and assist smallholders, not only during shocks but also for investing and saving options.
8
4. Environmental indicators, climate disturbances and sustainable use of resources
This section attempts to capture which are the main climate related threats and disturbances people have been exposed to and how they have coped with them. The latter in the case any strategy was put in place to overcome and adapt to such unexpected shocks and long-lasting trends. Other environment-related aspects, such as land improving practices and water conservation techniques, are also included.
4.1 Crops and varieties
Concerning agro-biodiversity, information was collected regarding crop species and varieties. With the use of that information, an overview of the number and types of crops and use of different varieties seeds is offered in this subsection.
80%
60%
40% % of % producersp er cultivated er crop 20%
0% Rice Peanut Maize Millet Undefined Crop 1 (Main) 77% 13% 5% 4% 1% Crop 2 5% 27% 17% 30% 11% Crop 3 9% 11% 17% 26% 24% Crop 4 6% 10% 8% 5% 41% Crop 5 3% 1% 1% 0% 67%
Crop 1 (Main) Crop 2 Crop 3 Crop 4 Crop 5
Figure 1. Main crops (seasonal / temporary cultivars)
The main crops identified through the survey are rice, peanut, maize, millet and a variety of other crops (see Figure 1). Unsurprisingly, rice is the main crop for 77 percent of the respondents, while millet is the second most produced crop by 27 percent of the farmers. Other crops as horticultures (e.g. tomato, onion, okra) and legumes (i.e. beans) are also produced but in a very small scale – only about 8% of the population plant them (see Annex 1). Perennial crops as fruit trees are barely produced by the surveyed producers.
Usually a single variety of every crop is used, although more than 85 percent of rice producers declared to use up to three different varieties (53% use two rice varieties and 34% use three). Crops are mainly grown for own consumption and for selling them in local markets. It is important to mention that relying on monocrop systems with a unique variety
9
turns people more vulnerable if unexpected shocks are experienced. For instance, in the case of diseases or pest, a small diversification of crops and a low rotation of them would increase the probability and amount of harvest loss and thus, the availability of food and income (in case of a cash crop), jeopardizing people’s livelihoods and food security.
Seed sources
When observing at the sources of seeds, 87 percent of smallholders produce their own seeds for their cultivated crops, although the government also provides some inputs, especially to local rice producers (see Figure 2). Low use is given to seed production groups and seed banks which are strategies that can help enhancing production diversification and stocking mechanisms at family and community levels, improving food security when times of seed scarcity are faced.
100%
80%
60%
40% % ofproducers %
20%
0% Seed- Self- Governmen Cooperativ Store NGO Friend production Other production t e groups Tidal scheme 86% 8% 2% 2% 1% 1% 1% 1% Water retention 91% 3% 3% 0% 0% 3% 1% 0%
Tidal scheme Water retention
Figure 2. Seed sources for main crops by irrigation site (% of households using a given source)
Although the number of crops and varieties utilized in the same system is low and limited, the introduction of non-local crop varieties is common amongst participants. This action could be perceived as a coping strategy to climate variability, as 80 percent of the ones incorporating them declared that their local varieties became dis-adaptive due to changes in climate (see Figure 3).
The clear majority of producers (83%) have incorporated non-native or new varieties into their farming systems in the last 15 years, being the ones using tidal irrigation schemes the ones that have used new varieties the most compared with producers using water retention schemes (88% and 72% respectively).
10
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0% Tidal scheme Water retention
Uses Does not use Does not know
Figure 3. Proportion of people using new varieties in the last 15 years (percentage of households)
Nonetheless, the heavy reliance on new varieties, displacing the local ones can threaten people’s stability in case shocks are experienced as the new varieties might not be adapted to local climate or environmental conditions either. Moreover, in the medium and long terms, this may also lead to the loss of genetic resources, traditional crops and food systems.
Irrigation systems are in place to provide with water resources to the planted crops, especially to the staples. As observed in Figure 4, the first crop is granted with water in 71 percent of the cases, while a drastic fall in the presence of irrigation is observed in the subsequent crops, which only 23 percent or less do have access to a constant water supply.
100%
80%
60%
40%
20% % of % HH irrigatingcrops 0% Crop 1 (Main) Crop 2 Crop 3 Crop 4 Crop 5 No 27% 79% 59% 36% 11% Yes 71% 11% 15% 21% 23%
Yes No
Figure 4. Irrigated crops according to their importance in the household (percentage of households irrigating crops)
11
4.2 Climate disturbances and effects
Disturbances experienced
Changes in climate have brought some consequences in agriculture and rural livelihoods in general. The total number of respondents interviewed in the Gambia have declared that two or more unexpected climate-related shocks have affected their farming production systems in the last ten years.
Error! Reference source not found. below summarizes weather and other non-climate-r elated events that have affected small-scale producers the most over the past decade. The gathered data shows that on average, food-producers have been negatively affected by four different types of unexpected shocks in the last decade. The different events vary on the irrigation site, disturbing producers and their farming systems differently.
Wrong timing of rains is the disturbance that has affected the water retention irrigation systems the most, while the presence of floods has negatively impacted tidal-based irrigation schemes (see Error! Reference source not found.). Around five times in the last 1 0 years, rains shifted their usual season and timing, affecting small-scale producers’ cropping and harvesting times. The presence of plants and crops diseases was also often observed by interviewees in both types of irrigations systems, though they have not declared it to be a real threat to them.
100% 9 8 80% 7
Frequency 6 60% 5 4 observed 40%
% distrubances % distrubances 3 20% 2 1 0% 0 Wrong Livestock Floods timing of Disease Conflict Locust Conflict raiding rains Water retention 1% 87% 3% 0% 5% 4% 0% Tidal scheme 73% 11% 2% 1% 9% 5% 1% Frequency (water ret) 2 6 6 0 5 3 0 Frequency (tidal) 4 5 5 0 8 3 0 Figure 5. Disturbances experienced in the last decade ranked by intensity by irrigation site (self-assessed)
12
Although non-climate or weather-related, livestock raiding constitutes one of the most recurrent events for producers, as they have been frequently experienced – five times or more in the last decade5.
Climate change trends and impacts
When observing the climate change related events witnessed by the interviewed producers, in more than 95 percent of the cases rain-associated events are the most frequently observed. Late arrival of the rain and shorter rainy seasons are the patterns that have been perceived by most farmers (96% and 94% respectively – see Figure 6). These changing trends are similar in both irrigation systems, though tidal-based scheme producers have also acknowledged the presence of more floods, whilst producers in water retention systems noticed the rise in unusual pest infestations.
Overall, changing climate patterns have impacted smallholders and their households in several ways, being the increased loss of crops and consequently their incomes the most noticeable ones (see Table 3). The changes in climatic trends have also implied a rise in expenditures on agricultural inputs, especially fertilizers. Water retention systems appear to be more heavily affected by changes in climate than tidal scheme producers.
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0% Increas Increas Decrea Unusua Increas Decrea e Late Shorter Late Floodin e se l pest e se rainfall onset rainy Other rain g temper temper infesta rainfall rainfall variabi of rain season atures atures tion lity Water retention 100% 53% 8% 69% 48% 53% 8% 95% 93% 64% 1% Tidal scheme 92% 96% 41% 58% 51% 39% 4% 94% 95% 43% 1%
Water retention Tidal scheme
Figure 6. Types of climate change events witnessed by irrigation site
5 Other disturbances observed ranked by importance are available in Annex 2. 13
Although climate change has had negative effects on smallholder’s production systems, water availability and quality do not seem to have been especially jeopardized as declared by the assessed interviewees.
Table 3. Climate change impacts by irrigation site, percentage of households
Irrigation site Water retention Tidal scheme Increased crop yield 3% 3% Crop failure 100% 97% Less farm income 100% 97% Increased expenses on agricultural inputs 60% 21% Migration / off-farm work 23% 22% Reduced fodder yields 60% 21% Irrigation (water availability) 20% 2% Irrigation (water quality) 17% 1% Unreliable water stream 27% 2%
4.3 Access to information on weather and cropping practices
Access to the different types of information
The access to information on weather and climatic events, such as weather forecasts or meteorological information is crucial to enhance producer’s capacity to timely respond to disturbances and changes in climate.
Means to Access to Access to predict weather forecasts cropping practices 100% 95% 83% 84% 77% 73% 80% 69%
60%
40% 31% 27% 23% 17% 20% 16% 5% 0% Yes No Yes No Yes No Water retention Tidal scheme
Figure 7. Access to information by irrigation site and type of information
In the selected sample, more than 80 percent of small-scale producers declared to use traditional means, such as observation of insects’ migration or/and suiting baobab leaves, to predict events related to climate (see Error! Reference source not found.). It is also o bserved that most producers do have access to services that allow them predicting weather
14
events, being the ones located close to the seashore those with slightly higher access (77% in tidal schemes vs 69% in water retention sites).
Access to information regarding cropping practices is granted to more than 70 percent of the Gambian farmers interviewed. On average, and for the different types of information here comprised, producers based on the tidal-scheme sites have a higher degree to information access.
Sources of information
For what regards weather and climatic events, information is mostly retrieved through radio and extension services, nonetheless smallholders declared information was of poor quality and not always accurate; moreover, limited access to distant locations limits their capacity to receive timely information on climate and weather.
Radio, extension agents and television – are the main channels to access information for agricultural producers, being the latter relatively more important for farmers in the water retention site (see Table 4).
Table 4. Sources of information on cropping practices, by irrigation site
Source of information on cropping practices Water retention Tidal scheme Radio 71% 79% Newspaper 3% 3% TV 57% 15% Internet 0% 1% Extension agent 49% 52% AP/FFS 7% 5% Other farmers 25% 30% Other 4% 2%
Through most of the assessed interviewees do have the possibility to retrieve climate or cropping practices related information, the one lacking of access to it, knowledge is constrained, mostly due to distant and limited availability of extension services, poor media coverage and high illiteracy levels.
4.4 Sustainable use of resources: Land and water management practices
Land management practices
Several sustainable practices and techniques are commonly used by smallholder farmers and pastoralists to prevent and reverse land degradation and soil infertility, while increasing land productivity. Most of the practices used also allow for water retention in the soil.
15
About 90 percent of the total surveyed population (85% in the tidal scheme site and 100% in water irrigation site) uses at least one land improving practice, being the incorporation of manure to the soil the most commonly used amongst the respondents6, followed by mulching (76%) and crop rotation (71%).
Overall, producers in the water retention schemes seem to have incorporated a higher diversity of practices to preserve soil quality when comparing with their counterparts in the tidal zones. Zero tillage, crop rotation, agroforestry and gully control are comparatively more practiced by the assessed households in the water retention sites, than in the tidal scheme ones.
Other Terracing Gully control Agroforestry Vegetative strips Manuring Mulching Intercropping Wind break Crop rotations Rotational grazing Zero tillage Fallowing Liming 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Water Retention Tidal Scheme
Figure 8. Land management practices used, by irrigation site
Water conservation practices
In the same line, on average, 77 percent of the small-scale producers are extensively using practices to ensure the water quantity for agricultural activities is preserved. Watering crops at specific times of the day (e.g. early morning and/or late night) is the strategy most used by farmers in tidal irrigation sites (89% of respondents). The use of mulches is the most widespread one by water retention practitioners to retain humidity in their agricultural land (55% of respondents). Water retention ditches and other practices are also undertaken by almost 30 percent (on average) of smallholders in this type of irrigation system (see Figure 9).
6 For more details, refer to Annex 3. 16
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0% Water Water Planting early Water Cover retention Mulching Other pits morning or harvesting crops ditches late night Tidal Scheme 0% 4% 89% 48% 64% 1% 4% Water Retention 1% 36% 45% 35% 55% 1% 19%
Tidal Scheme Water Retention
Figure 9. Water conservation practice, by irrigation site
Although agricultural producers do incorporate practices to preserve soil quality and water quantity, there would be scope for introducing and enhancing the adoption of more technology-based water management practices, for instance water-harvesting tanks, irrigation schemes for off-season agriculture (e.g. drip irrigation), and other water conservation techniques.
4.5 Irrigation infrastructure
Ninety six percent of the surveyed producers declared to have an irrigation system in place, though only 13 percent of them accounts with the necessary infrastructure to provide their corps with a steady water supply7. For water retention irrigation systems, run-off water and streams are the main source of water; while for tidal schemes, streams are where crop- producers source the water from (see Error! Reference source not found. and Table A9 in the annexes).
In the water retention system site, the intake of water is mostly performed without using any type of infrastructure, this is true for the 67 percent of respondents. Traditional wells (64%), deep boreholes (25%) and modern wells (19%) are the mechanisms employed by farmers to extract groundwater; while solar pumps and other instrument, as the use of a rope and a bucket, are the elements most used for water intake.
On the other hand, in the project site where the tidal irrigation schemes are being used, canals constitute the main source for water intake for 70 percent of the interviewees, followed by some presence of water diversion structure accessed by 19 percent of the respondents. To obtain groundwater farmers in this site use traditional wells (40%), shallow modern wells (29%) and deep boreholes (29%). In general, tidal scheme based irrigation
7 This is the share excluding tidal irrigation for not overestimating the presence of infrastructure in other types of irrigation systems - 97% of the people with tidal irrigation have infrastructure. 17
systems have a broader diversity of water lifting techniques and equipment. Finally, solar and manually operated pumps, together with traditional methods (e.g. rope and bucket) are the appliances used by these small-scale producers to extract water. It is important to mention that groundwater is generally used for domestic purpose and vegetable gardening and not for irrigation of the tidal schemes. The tidal-based irrigation relies entirely on the fluctuation of the tides that irrigate and drain through the canal network.
The set of graphs in Figure 10 below, provide detailed information on irrigation system characteristics of equipped systems per irrigation site.
Water source 80%
60%
40%
20%
0% Stream Pond Run off Other
Water retention Tidal scheme
Water intake 80%
60%
40%
20%
0% Direct without Water intake Pumping station Canal Other infrastructure infrastructure / diversion structure
Water retention Tidal scheme
18
Growndwater extraction 70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0% Traditional wells Shallow modern Deep modern Shallow Deep boreholes Other wells wells boreholes
Water retention Tidal scheme
Water lifting 60%
40%
20%
0% Manually operated Electric pumps Motor pumps Solar pumps Other pumps
Water retention Tidal scheme
Figure 10. Water source, intake, extraction and lifting by irrigation system, percentage of producers
4.6 Field irrigation practices
The majority households assessed (88% respondents) use surface irrigation practices to provide water to their crops, while one respondent declared to use localized irrigation (sprinkler) and 12 percent do not use any system, suggesting the reliance on rainfall for irrigation.
For the surface irrigation methods, cans and buckets were listed as the most widespread mechanism for watering, reflecting the low level of technology adoption amongst 83 percent of smallholders. A minority of respondents use basins (1%), Californian systems (2%) and other methods (2%).
19
1% 2%
12% 2%
None Californian Watering cans/buckets Basin Other
83%
Figure 11. Irrigation technologies used, total
Table 5. Irrigation technologies, by irrigation site
Irrigation technology used Water retention Tidal scheme Total Sprinkler 1% 0% 0% Localized 0% 0% 0% Surface 100% 100% 100% Californian 0% 3% 2% Watering cans/buckets 96% 79% 83% Basin 0% 2% 1% Other 0% 2% 1% None 4% 15% 12%
Of the total interviewees, only about 5 percent declared to have a rotation system in place for water supply, of whom 83 percent of respondents declared the rotation works well for the purpose.
Water supply and availability
For 74 percent of smallholders, water supply is sufficient for the crops they grow as declared by them. When looking at the different irrigation sites, only 41 percent in the water retention feel satisfied with the amount of water available for their cropping systems, while 59 percent find the quantity is not adequate. Despite the low satisfaction rates, only two respondents declared to have restricted access to such a resource. Conversely, in the water retention site, 87 percent find the supply of water is enough for meeting their farming needs.
20
180% 160% 140% 120% 100% 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Water retention Tidal shceme Has taken any action 61% 41% Water availability has decreased 83% 70% Water availability has not 17% 30% decreased
Water availability has not decreased Water availability has decreased Has taken any action
Figure 12. Changes in water availability for crops due to variations in rainfall and/or temperature, by irrigation site. In grey, whether people have taken any action
When observing at the water availability, three quarters of the total population surveyed stated that there have been changes on it as result of variation in rainfall and/or temperature, being more worrisome for those in the water retention site (Figure 12). Sixty- three percent of all affected farmers have declared having taken some action at the field level in the past ten years to cope with this restricted water availability, water retention practitioners being more involved in proportion than the ones in the tidal irrigation site (61% vs 41% respectively). Some strategies adopted consist in the incorporation of drought- resistant and early maturing crops, shift upland/lowland production and digging new wells.
About 20 percent of the producers pay for irrigation water and/or maintenance of the system. Nonetheless, the ones located in the water retention site seem to incur in more of these types of expenditures than the ones practicing tidal irrigation (41% in the water retention pay, whilst 12% pay in the tidal scheme). Fees vary from 100 to 1 500 GMD per season (approximately 2.17 to 32.63 USD in 2017).
4.7 Agricultural equipment
Almost all respondents (99%) have access to at least one type of equipment or machine for agriculture. The most commonly used types of equipment across sites are: 4-wheel tractors (77%), power-tiller machines (71%) and ploughing (59%). Though in a lesser extent, 2-wheel tractors are used by 22 percent of respondent on average. In addition, 26 percent of respondents reported using other equipment, among which the manual operated hoe/plough (“daba”) was mentioned. While 2-wheel tractors and ploughing equipment seemed to be widely used across sites (see Figure 13), the use of other types of equipment was more localized. Power-tiller machines and 4-wheel tractors were mostly used in tidal zones, as reported by 88 percent of households. In water retention sites, 2-wheel tractors and ploughing equipment were used by 65 percent of respondents on average.
21
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0% 4-wheel 2-wheel Ploughing Teshing Power tiller Other tractor tractor machine
Water retention Tidal
Figure 13. Agricultural equipment used by irrigation site
22
5. Resilience analysis
Average resilience levels
Following the SHARP methodology for the measurement of resilience, the data collected reflected that overall, the average level of climate resilience is moderate-high, corresponding to 10.98 points (out of 20, see Figure 14 and tables in annex 5). These general levels of resilience for the complete set of people interviewed suggest smallholder farmers possess a certain capacity and knowledge to cope with unexpected shocks and climate variability, but there is a need to further strengthen their ability to adapt to climate change.
Household Savings 20 Production types Non-farm IGA Crops Income sources New varieties
Main expenditures 13 Crop losses
ICTs Record keeping 7 Financial support Information access
Local farm inputs Water access 0
Access to local markets Water conservation
Trust and cooperation Water quality
Disturbances Irrigation infrastructure
Group membership Field irrigation practices Fertility management Land access Energy sources Soil quality Farm equipment Land management…
Low resilience Moderate resilience High resilience Self-assessed importance
Figure 14. Average resilience levels across different modules (academic plus adequacy scores), total surveyed population
With the lowest scores obtained (below 7), the major vulnerabilities are observed in the following question-modules: field irrigation practices, main expenditures and soil quality,
23
and land degradation. The relative low resilience levels in these variables can be explained by several factors8:
Field irrigation practices (4.20 points/20): limited resilience is observed since the mechanization of the irrigation systems and low adoption of technologies (as localized irrigation) is rather poor amongst participants. Moreover, rotations systems for irrigation are absent in more than 85 percent of the farm systems covered. Soil quality and land degradation (6.99 points/20): All producers declared to have observed at least two or more degradation processes in their soils, with a mean of seven and a median of five. Also, 57 percent of the smallholders said their soil contains very little organic matter. When observing at the adequacy score, farmers expressed they felt their soil quality was only “somehow” enough for meeting their farming needs. Energy sources (7.21 points/20): Low scores are attributed to the limited variety to source energy from, the use of fuel-based energy limits and the little reliance on local energy sources. The combination of these factors shows little incorporation of sustainable and clean solutions to generate power for machinery and irrigation and the dependence on external sources of energy for the agricultural system.
Contrariwise, the top-three modules where relative high levels of resilience can be noticed are: farm equipment, and access to information and communication technologies (ICTs) and water access as they score over 14 points9.
Farm equipment: 99 percent of the smallholders interviewed own farm equipment for managing their land. In the water retention sites, ploughing gears followed by 2-wheel tractors are equipment they commonly use. Power tiller machines and 4-wheel tractors are the farming equipment used in the tidal irrigation sites. Over 80 percent of producers consider the machinery and equipment they have access to adequate and enough. Access to information and communication technologies (ICTs): 98 percent of the population has access and ownership to at least one technology; being mobile phones and radio the ones mostly purchased (94 and 80% respectively). Overall, access to information through ICTs is considered good. Water access: About 80 percent of the assessed producers have access to at least two water sources for meeting their agricultural and household needs. Efficient and diversified water sources within a walking distance allow people to timely access it when needed.
8 Main expenditures (3.08 points/20) also rated low limiting resilience. Education is barely rated as a priority when allocating the household income. Ninety percent of respondents declared their household’s main expenses are on food and drinks. Oppositely, only 1% of the surveyed people has placed education on the top of the ranking as the major expenses carried out in the household, suggesting that investment in human capital is a factor that is being lagged. However, low level of expenditure on education could also be ascribed to the fact that primary and Secondary School education is free in all Government Schools, the predominant centres of learning in the rural areas. 9 Use of new varieties is excluded from this analysis as the “adequacy” scores were not recorded and could produce a potential bias. 24
The Table A10 in annex 5 gives additional information on distribution of scores across different aspects assessed.
Priorities: self-assessed importance
The priorities are identified by the aspects that people self-stated as important. This component is purely subjective so smallholders have the opportunity to express what they consider as important or priority for the well-functioning of their production system and household dynamics. Figure 15 maps the different components embedded in SHARP for assessing the level of resilience people have, considering objective (academic score) and subjective components (self-assessed adequacy and importance).
10 0
Self -
8 3 importance assessed
5 5
assessed adequacy assessed adequacy -
3 8
0 10
ICTs
Academic Academic score self &
Crops
Savings
Household
Croplosses
Landaccess
Disturbances
Wateraccess
Non-farmIGA
Waterquality
Energysources
Incomesources
Recordkeeping
Farmequipment
Productiontypes
Financialsupport
Localfarm inputs
Mainexpenditures
Group membership
Trustand cooperation
Fertilizersand fertility…
Accessto local markets
Irrigation infrastructure
Fieldirrigation practices
Accessto information on…
Utilizationnew of varieties
Landmanagement practices
Waterconservation techniques… Soilquality land and degradation
Academic Scoring Self-assessed adequacy Self-assessed importance
Figure 15. SHARP resilience components: objective and self-assessments
Note: The assessed importance has an inverse scale, i.e. the higher the score, the lower the importance, and vice versa. For easier reading, the graph uses an inverted scale so the peaks represent the themes with the highest priorities.
As noticed in the graph above, priorities are set in a number of the productive and socio- economic aspects of the farming system and households. With 0.21 points/10, having varied sources of income (including off-farm activities) is considered the main priority for them to be addressed and one of the weakest in terms of adequacy levels. Major and easier 25
mechanisms to source the farm inputs locally is also considered as paramount. Although high scores in the objective assessment, water access is prioritized aspects by the interviewees, and thus need to be considered when formulating projects and intervention in the different irrigation sites.
5.1 Resilience by irrigation site
Overall, tidal irrigation schemes possess relatively higher levels of resilience to climate events than water retention-based irrigation systems, given that they scored 11.31 points against 10.50 respectively. In general, discrepancies in the scores can be explained by “major” gaps in five aspects: crops, access to local markets, income sources, land access and use of sustainable land management practices (see Figure 16 and Table 6)10.
Table 6. Aspects of resilience, disaggregated by level and irrigation site
Water retention Tidal scheme Average Self- Average Self- Question module Question module Resilience assessed Resilience assessed importance importance Household 15.80 0.29 Farm equipment 15.83 0.21 Farm equipment 14.87 2.00 Income sources 15.69 0.15 ICTs 14.74 2.68 ICTs 15.60 1.38 Water access 14.56 0.63 Water access 15.15 0.25 Soil quality and 7.09 1.63 Water conservation 8.72 3.06 land degradation practices Non-farm IGA 6.90 2.61 Non-farm IGA 7.68 1.95 Savings 6.10 0.71 Energy sources 7.47 3.10 Energy sources 5.01 4.41 Soil quality and 6.97 0.43 land degradation Energy sources 5.01 4.41 Field irrigation 4.16 7.18 practices Averages (all 10.50 2.30 Averages (all 11.31 1.45 questions) questions)
In general, the systems located in the seashore also present more crop diversification, a deeper access to local markets for selling farm products, more varied sources of income and are better able to save money. The combination of these factors makes these producers relatively stronger to face unexpected weather events and to cope with their effects than the counterparts in the water retention irrigation communities.
Nonetheless, the latter appear to be wealthier in terms of land ownership and access to communal land. Producers located in the water retention site have a more widespread use of practices to conserve the land quality and water quantity. These factors certainly reflect
10 The question module “use of new varieties” is excluded from the analysis as the adequacy assessment was not recorded due to a technical issue and results were normalized. 26
they possess knowledge and abilities to sustainably manage the resources they own and have access to, building on and preserving the local natural capital.
20 0.00 18 1.00 16 2.00 14 3.00 12 4.00 10 5.00 8 6.00 6 7.00 4 8.00 2 9.00
0 10.00
ICTs
Crops
Savings
Household
Crop Crop losses
Soil quality Soil
Land Land access
Disturbances
Water Water access
Non-farm IGA Non-farm
New varieties New
Water Water quality
Energy sources Energy
Income sourcesIncome
Record Record keeping
Farm Farm equipment
Production typesProduction
Financial Financial support
Local farm Localinputs
Main Main expenditures
Group membership Group
Water Water conservation
Fertility management Fertility
Access to information Access to
Trust andcooperation Trust
Access to local local markets Access to
Irrigation Irrigation infrastructure
Field irrigation practices irrigation Field Land management Land practices management
Average Resilience (WR) Average Resilience (TS)
Figure 16. Resilience assessment by irrigation site
Regarding priorities, tidal scheme-based farmers give relative more importance to: access to land, farm equipment, and access to local markets; water access and water quality are also prioritized. For water retention practitioners, primacy is provided to household dynamics, water access, water quality, fertilizers and fertility management and income sources.
Potential project formulations and interventions should focus on ways that allow smallholders to diversify their agricultural production systems, while incorporating new techniques to sustainably manage them and the resources available. Projects can also aim at building value chains to ensure increased knowledge on production practices, access to markets to agricultural products that guarantee a steady source of income for farmers and their families.
27
6. Conclusions
The report summarizes the findings of the SHARP smallholder climate resilience assessment carried out among users of three irrigation sites in the Gambia, in two different types of irrigation systems: tidal irrigation and water retention schemes. In most households, the main crops are irrigated.
Agricultural producers have been negatively affected by changes in climate: wrong timing of rains is the disturbance that has affected the water retention irrigation systems the most, while the presence of floods has negatively impacted tidal-based irrigation schemes. Overall, changes in climate were mostly related to rainfall patterns, including delays in rains, shorter and more irregular seasons. The changing trends have caused the increased crop failure and thus reduction of incomes from agricultural activities. The changes in climatic trends have also implied a rise in expenditures on agricultural inputs, especially fertilizers.
Water availability has been also a consequence of climate change, particularly for water retention-based irrigation systems. Nonetheless it is important to note that about 77 percent of the small-scale producers are extensively using practices to ensure the water quantity for agricultural activities is preserved. Watering crops at specific times of the day (e.g. early morning or late night) is the strategy most used by farmers in tidal irrigation site, while using mulches is the most widespread one by water retention practitioners to retain humidity in their agricultural land. In this regard and given the changing climate trends, there would be scope for introducing and enhancing the adoption of more technology-based water management practices, for instance water-harvesting tanks, irrigation schemes for off- season agriculture (e.g. drip irrigation), and other water conservation techniques.
Overall climate resilience of smallholders in the irrigation sites assessed is moderate (average resilience score of 10.98 out of 20). Resilience in terms of production practices and environment emerges as priority domains for strengthening resilience in the sites. In particular, the key areas identified for improving resilience across sites were: field irrigation practices, soil quality, and energy sources. In terms of areas of strong resilience, irrigation systems and access to ICT, farm equipment, and water access. Water quality and access, diversification of income sources and locally sourced farm inputs appeared as key concerns for improvement among respondents. Overall, tidal irrigation schemes possess relatively higher levels of resilience to climate events than water retention-based irrigation systems, though no substantial difference is observed. In general, discrepancies in the scores can be explained by “major” gaps in five aspects: crops, access to local markets, income sources, land access and use of sustainable land management practices
Based on the information collected, important improvements in resilience can be achieved by focusing on changing practices in field irrigation, water conservation, and land and soil management. Potential project formulations and interventions should focus on ways that allow smallholders to diversify their agricultural production systems, while incorporating new techniques to sustainably manage them and the resources available. Projects can also aim at building value chains to ensure increased knowledge on production practices, access to markets to agricultural products that guarantee a steady source of income for farmers 28
and their families. Additional barriers to use of such practices need to be explored through qualitative research and community consultations. In addition, complementary site-specific measures tackling social and economic aspects might be needed to enable a resilience building environment.
29
7. Annexes
Annex 1. Crop production
Table A1. Crop production (Number of producers) Seasonal Crop 1(Main) Crop 2 Crop 3 Crop 4 Cop 5 # Producers 271 266 259 251 246 rice 210 13 24 14 7 peanut 34 72 28 26 2 maize 13 46 44 21 3 millet 10 81 67 13 Other crops 2 26 34 75 69 Irrigated Crop 1 (Main) Crop 2 Crop 3 Crop 4 Cop 5 Yes 193 28 40 53 56 No 74 209 152 90 28
Table A2. Crop production (Percentage of producers) Seasonal crops Crop 1 (Main) Crop 2 Crop 3 Crop 4 Crop 5 % of producers 100% 98% 96% 93% 91% Rice 77% 5% 9% 6% 3% Peanut 13% 27% 11% 10% 1% Maize 5% 17% 17% 8% 1% Millet 4% 30% 26% 5% 0% Other crops 1% 10% 13% 30% 28% Irrigated Crop 1 (Main) Crop 2 Crop 3 Crop 4 Crop 5 Yes 71% 11% 15% 21% 23% No 27% 79% 59% 36% 11%
Table A3. Other crops produced Other crops Crop % Crop % Crop % Crop % Crop % 1 2 3 4 5 Beans 1 0.37% 3 1.13% 6 2.32% 10 3.98% 4 1.63%
Cabbage 1 0.38% 4 1.54% 2 0.80% 6 2.44%
Cashew 2 0.80% 1 0.41% Cassava 1 0.37% 1 0.38% 5 1.93% 2 0.80% 2 0.81%
Chili 1 0.40%
Okra 5 1.88% 5 1.93% 10 3.98% 20 8.13%
Onion 5 1.88% 3 1.16% 18 7.17% 20 8.13%
Peppers 1 0.39% 3 1.20% 3 1.22%
Potato 1 0.39% 1 0.41%
Sorghum 5 1.88% 3 1.16% 7 2.79% 5 2.03%
Tomato 7 2.63% 2 0.77% 6 2.39% 3 1.22%
Watermelon 1 0.38% 2 0.77% 3 1.20% 1 0.41%
Wheat 1 0.40% Other 3 1.13% 7 2.70% 8 3.19% 3 1.22%
30
Annex 2. Disturbances
Table A4. Disturbances experienced by level of importance Disturbance type Rank 1 Rank 2 Rank 3
Conflict 0.37% 0.75% Disease 1.86% 10.45% 20%
Fire 0.75% 0.38% Floods 53.16% 13.81% 6.15% Livestock raiding 8.18% 16.79% 35% Locust 4.46% 27.24% 15% Wrong timing of rains 31.97% 30.22% 23.46%
31
Annex 3. Sustainable use of resources
Table A5. Access to land, by irrigation site Tidal scheme Water retention Access to land Average Average Obs. % Obs. % (Ha.) (Ha.) Total accessible land Private land 193 98% 5.90 74 99% 3.50 Community 13 7% 2.60 38 51% 3.32 land Rented land 4 2% 2 4 5% 0.50 Rain fed Private land 174 89% 5.10 52 69% 3.16 Community 10 5% 2.10 33 44% 3.28 land Rented land 2 1% 2.50 0 0% Irrigated Private land 192 98% 1.52 72 96% 1.45 Community 4 2% 1.56 10 13% 0.40 land Rented land 4 2% 0.75 0 0%
Table A6. Use of and improving practices, by irrigation site Use of land improving practices The Gambia Tidal scheme Water retention # % # % # % Does not use 30 11% 30 15% 0 0% Uses at least one 241 89% 166 85% 75 100% Average used 4 4 5 Practices used # % # % # % Liming 43 18% 7 4% 36 48% Fallowing 57 24% 33 20% 24 32% Zero tillage 122 51% 73 44% 49 65% Rotational grazing 11 5% 7 4% 4 5% Crop rotation 172 71% 124 75% 48 64% Wind break 8 3% 2 1% 6 8% Intercropping 37 15% 29 17% 8 11% Mulching 182 76% 125 75% 57 76% Manuring 214 89% 152 92% 62 83% Vegetative strips 6 2% 0 0% 6 8% Agroforestry 41 17% 12 7% 29 39% Gully control 35 15% 13 8% 23 31% Terracing 9 4% 2 1% 7 9% Other 2 1% 2 1% 0 0%
32
Table A7. Use of water conservation practices, by irrigation site
Water management practices The % Tidal Water Gambia scheme retention (Total) No conservation 61 23% 61 0 At least one practice 210 77% 135 75 Use of water conservation The Gambia Tidal Water practices scheme retention # % # % # % Planting pits 1 0% 0 0% 1 1% Water retention ditches 32 15% 5 4% 27 36% Water early morning or late nigh 154 73% 120 89% 34 45% Water harvesting 91 43% 65 48% 26 35% Mulching 128 61% 87 64% 41 55% Cover crops 2 1% 1 1% 1 1% Other 19 9% 5 4% 14 19%
33
Annex 4. Water sources and irrigation systems
Table A8. Irrigation infrastructure, total surveyed people Irrigation systems # % Has an irrigation system 261 96% Does not have an irrigation system 5 2% No response 6 2% Equipped 218 84% Non-equipped 53 20%
Table A9. Water source, intake and extraction Irrigation types Water Tidal scheme Total retention (equipped (equipped system) system) Inland valley bottom 31% 0% 8% Horticultural garden 10% 36% 29% Flood irrigation 0% 1% 0% Tidal irrigation 0% 97% 71% Flood recession 0% 3% 2% Other 0% 1% 0% Water source, intake and extraction Water source of irrigation (%) Water Tidal scheme Total retention Stream 29% 43% 39% Dam 0% 0% 0% Pond 1% 0% 0% Run off 67% 2% 19% Drainage water 0% 0% 0% Other 10% 3% 5% Water intake (%) Water Tidal scheme Total retention Direct without infrastructure 71% 1% 20% Water intake infrastructure / 3% 20% 15% diversion structure Pumping station 3% 3% 3% Canal 0% 72% 53% Other 1% 0% 0% Groundwater (%) Water Tidal scheme Total retention Traditional wells 64% 41% 47% Shallow modern wells 4% 30% 23% Deep modern wells 20% 4% 8% 34
Irrigation types Water Tidal scheme Total retention (equipped (equipped system) system) Shallow boreholes 7% 3% 4% Deep boreholes 27% 29% 29% Other 0% 2% 2% Water lifting (%) Water Tidal scheme Total retention Manually operated pumps 0% 8% 6% Electric pumps 0% 1% 1% Motor pumps 0% 4% 3% Solar pumps 47% 36% 39% Other 44% 23% 29%
35
Annex 5. SHARP measurement of resilience
Table A10. SHARP measurement of resilience, total interviewed people Q. Variable Obs. Weight Acade Self- Average Self- mic assessed Resilience assessed Score adequacy importance Agricultural production practices 2 Household 271 467 6.72 8.12 14.83 0.52 3 Production types 271 467 7.35 6.72 14.09 1.20 4 Crops 271 467 5.72 5.43 11.15 0.67
5 Utilization of new varieties 271 467 5.37 NR 6 Crop losses 258 448 6.44 4.49 10.91 0.96 7 Record keeping 271 467 3.87 5.17 9.04 0.94 8 Access to information on weather 271 467 7.93 5.13 13.09 1.98 and cropping practices Average production practices section 6.20 5.84 12.19 1.05 Environment 9 Water access 271 467 7.96 6.97 14.93 0.34 10 Water conservation techniques and 271 467 4.87 4.10 8.97 2.93 practices 11 Water quality 271 467 8.18 8.42 NR 0.30 12 Irrigation infrastructure 271 467 5.27 5.80 11.07 1.93 13 Field irrigation practices 271 467 2.41 1.78 4.20 7.37 14 Land access 271 467 3.75 5.85 9.60 0.33 15 Soil quality and land degradation 271 467 2.60 4.39 6.99 0.61 16 Land management practices 271 467 6.06 4.19 10.25 2.31 17 Farm equipment 271 467 9.70 6.06 15.76 0.46 18 Energy sources 271 467 2.71 4.50 7.21 3.25 19 Fertilizers and fertility 271 467 4.99 4.14 9.14 0.48 management Average environment section 5.32 5.11 9.81 1.85 Social 20 Group membership 271 467 5.45 4.78 10.23 4.48 21 Disturbances 270 466 7.34 3.75 11.09 1.71 22 Trust and cooperation 271 467 6.53 4.42 10.95 3.58 Average social section 6.44 4.32 10.76 3.26 Economic 23 Access to local markets 269 463 7.18 6.17 13.36 0.34 24 Local farm inputs 271 467 4.52 5.80 10.33 0.25 25 Financial support 271 467 6.66 3.36 9.55 1.74 26 ICTs 271 467 10 5.59 15.57 1.48
27* Main expenditures 271 467 3.08 NA 28 Income sources 255 442 8.98 6.42 15.44 0.21 29 Non-farm IGA 269 464 4.24 3.41 7.65 2.01 30 Savings 271 467 6.48 3.50 10.00 0.38 Average economic section 6.39 4.89 11.70 0.92 Averages 5.94 5.13 10.98 1.58 (Production+Environment+Social+Economic) Notes: a) Average scores are calculated using analytic weights of the irrigation sites; b) Average resilience scores were normalized to 20 for the variable "Utilization of new varieties" as the adequacy component was not recorded; c) The "Main expenditures" question module does not contain adequacy and importance questions by formulation. Average resilience levels were normalized to 20 to account to this lack of information and avoid sub estimation of results. 36
Table A11. SHARP measurement of resilience, by irrigation site Q. Variable Water retention Tidal scheme Average Self-assessed Average Self-assessed Resilience importance Resilience importance (WR) (WR) (TS) (TS) Agricultural production practices 2 Household 15.80 0.29 14.65 0.55 3 Production types 13.18 2.16 14.09 0.90 4 Crops 10.19 1.87 11.25 0.43
5 Utilization of new varieties 6 Crop losses 9.58 1.92 11.18 0.85 7 Record keeping 8.24 1.20 9.08 0.97 8 Access to information on weather 12.77 2.72 12.96 1.94 and cropping practices Average production practices section 11.63 1.69 12.20 0.94 Environment 9 Water access 14.56 0.63 15.15 0.25 10 Water conservation techniques and 10.44 2.68 8.72 3.06 practices
11 Water quality 0.66 0.25 12 Irrigation infrastructure 10.31 5.03 11.10 1.29 13 Field irrigation practices 4.47 8.00 4.16 7.18 14 Land access 12.46 1.13 9.11 0.17 15 Soil quality and land degradation 7.09 1.63 6.97 0.43 16 Land management practices 12.68 2.02 9.65 2.31 17 Farm equipment 14.87 2.00 15.83 0.21 18 Energy sources 5.01 4.41 7.47 3.10 19 Fertilizers and fertility management 7.91 0.84 9.60 0.40 Average environment section 9.98 2.64 9.77 1.70 Social 20 Group membership 8.31 6.00 10.54 4.36 21 Disturbances 12.03 2.66 11.02 1.47 22 Trust and cooperation 10.75 3.55 11.27 3.37 Average social section 10.36 4.07 10.94 3.07 Economic 23 Access to local markets 9.37 1.32 14.03 0.20 24 Local farm inputs 9.27 1.03 10.50 0.15 25 Financial support 9.79 1.70 10.16 1.63 26 ICTs 14.74 2.68 15.60 1.38
27 Main expenditures 28 Income sources 13.40 0.61 15.69 0.15 29 Non-farm IGA 6.90 2.61 7.68 1.95 30 Savings 6.10 0.71 10.74 0.32 Average economic section 9.94 1.52 12.06 0.83 Averages (Production +Environment 10.39 2.30 11.08 1.45 +Social+ Economic) Notes: a) Average scores are calculated using analytic weights of the gender of the household head, as academic scores contain averages in their original formulation; b) Average resilience scores were normalized to 20 for the variable "Utilization of new varieties" as the adequacy component was not recorded; c) The "Main expenditures" 37
question module does not contain adequacy and importance questions by formulation. Average resilience levels were normalized to 20 to account to this lack of information and avoid sub estimation of results.
Figure A 1. SHARP resilience components: objective and self-assessments by irrigation site
Water retention
10 0 Self - 8 3 importance assessed
5 5
assessed adequacy assessed adequacy 3 8 -
0 10 ICTs Crops Savings Household Crop losses Soil quality Land access Disturbances Water access Non-farm IGA New varieties Water quality Energy sources Income sources Record keeping Farm equipment Production types Academic Academic score self & Financial support Local farm inputs Main expenditures Land management… Information access Group membership Water conservation Fertility management Trust and cooperation Access to local markets Irrigation infrastructure Field irrigation practices
Academic Scoring Self-assessed importance Self-assessed adequacy
Tidal scheme
10 0 Self - 8 3 importance assessed
5 5
3 8 assessed adequacy assessed adequacy - 0 10 ICTs Crops Savings Household Crop losses Soil quality Land access Disturbances Water access Non-farm IGA New varieties Water quality Energy sources Field irrigation… Income sources Record keeping Farm equipment Production types Financial support Local farm inputs Main expenditures Land management… Academic Academic score self & Information access Group membership Water conservation Fertility management Trust and cooperation Access to local markets Irrigation infrastructure
Academic Scoring Self-assessed importance Self-assessed adequacy
38
This publication was produced thanks to the financial support of CA4256EN/1/05.19